自由的圍牆？在國安陰影下守護學術與文化交流的永續價值

名為「安全」的盾牌，

是堅實的「守護」，

還是窒息的「囚籠」？

從哈佛校園的言論風暴，到台灣政策的國安防線，這個問題不斷被拋回社會討論的中心。當「國家安全」被放上神壇，化為決策者最堅不可摧的正當性來源，任何質疑都可能被視為「不愛國」、「破壞團結」；而異議與反思，則被貼上「有害」、「滲透」的標籤。

但歷史提醒我們，過度築牆防禦的社會，最終可能困住的不是敵人，而是自己。

清朝末年正是活生生的警示。曾經自詡為「天朝上國」、文化與軍事的強權，為了避免外來衝擊，堅持閉關鎖國，以「天朝體制」自限，不願與世界交流。結果卻是科技落後、思想僵化、外交孤立，在列強環伺中逐漸喪失主動權，最終由盛轉衰。那些以「保護自己」為名的政策，實則是一道道將社會推向衰敗的無形高牆。

今天，我們是否也正在重複同樣的歷史弔詭？以安全為由的嚴格審查、全面阻絕與「外來者」的連結，看似築起穩固堡壘，實則有可能切斷了與世界對話的橋樑，讓年輕世代失去跨文化的理解與競爭力，讓學術與創新枯竭在封閉空間裡，讓整個社會走向思想的孤島化。

我們當然不能否認國家安全的重要性。但真正的安全，不該是建立在恐懼與排斥之上，而是源自於一個社會的內部韌性、自信與對多元的容納力。唯有在開放中保持警覺，在連結中深化防衛，才能既守得住邊界，也保得住未來。

換句話說，當「安全」不再是民主社會多元與開放的守護者，而成為拒絕外來、扼殺思辨、濫用權力的工具時，它就不再是盾牌，而是鐵鎖加身的囚籠。

在聯合國推動的永續發展目標（SDGs）中，教育不僅是知識的傳遞，更是尊重多元、建立和平與全球理解的關鍵橋樑。但當「國家安全」的名義日漸籠罩學術與文化空間，世界正陷入一場看不見的角力：是守護，還是封鎖？是保障，還是排斥？

哈佛烽火：當學術自由與國安意識正面衝突

2025年春，美國哈佛大學因對以巴議題的學生抗議與校內言論，遭前總統川普領導的政府嚴厲制裁：凍結數十億研究經費、威脅取消免稅地位、禁止招收國際新生，並撤銷移民認證。

政府宣稱為「保護學生、抵禦外國滲透」，卻被批評為打壓異議與濫用國安旗幟。哈佛校長與師生發聲捍衛言論與學術自由，認為此舉將造成國際學術交流斷裂，損害科學研究與全球教育合作的未來，特別是對抗癌症、公共衛生等全球議題的努力。

這不只是哈佛的風暴——它是一場波及全球的民主試煉。

台海迷霧：當防衛成為排斥，學術與文化邊界漸模糊

與哈佛事件遙相呼應，台灣近年在中國威脅壓力下，強化各項「防滲透」政策。從技術審查、交流限制到《反滲透法》，政府高舉「主權與民主」大旗，卻也引發「排外」疑慮。

教育部要求部分大學暫停與特定中國大學交流，引發學界與在野黨批評「政治干預專業」、「阻礙兩岸理解」。而對陸配與其子女的「安全化審視」，也可能加劇族群間的誤解與歧視。

此處的核心問題不僅是安全與風險評估，更在於——我們是否正為了恐懼與對立，犧牲了理解與交流？

國安、排外與政府權力的危險交織

學者指出，「國家安全」從冷戰後開始擴張至科技、經濟、文化領域，賦予政府更大的介入空間，卻也可能成為抑制公民自由與多元價值的藉口。

在哈佛，美國政府針對特定學生群體與國家背景的政策，被批評為系統性的排外主義，並導致亞裔與國際學生的污名化。在台灣，對「中國因素」的過度防範，有時已模糊了對政權與人民的區分，危及兩岸人民間的理解與合作。

真正的問題是：我們在建構怎樣的社會？是強化信任與包容，還是築起圍牆與恐懼？

以SDGs視角重新定位「安全」與「自由」的平衡

聯合國SDGs的核心不只是發展經濟與環保，更強調教育自由（目標4）、減少歧視（目標10）、促進和平與正義（目標16）以及跨國合作（目標17）。在這些指標中，文化與學術交流是維繫全球理解、避免誤判衝突的關鍵機制。

當學術機構失去自由，國際學生無法跨境學習，或因身分與國籍被貼上標籤，SDGs所倡導的和平、公平與教育正義將形同虛設。

結語：面對不安，我們是否有勇氣選擇理解？

或許，我們不該問「我們夠不夠安全？」而該問：「我們還剩多少自由？還有多少理解的空間？」

真正強大的社會，不是用封鎖與排斥來面對威脅，而是在風暴中依然選擇開放胸懷、堅守價值。正如SDGs所指出，唯有教育、公平與合作，才是通往真正安全與永續的道路。

在這個安全與自由的天平之上，我們不應選擇恐懼與排他，而應選擇信任與連結。

Walls of Freedom?

Safeguarding Academic and Cultural Exchange Amid National Security Shadows

Is the shield of "security" truly a guardian—

Or merely a cage in disguise?

From the speech storms at Harvard to Taiwan’s tightening national security policies, the balance between freedom and protection has taken center stage in global debate. As “national security” rises to sacred status, providing policymakers with unquestionable legitimacy, dissenting voices are increasingly branded as “unpatriotic” or “divisive.” Critical thinking and reflection are labeled “dangerous” or “subversive.”

Yet history reminds us: when walls are built too high in the name of defense, it’s not the enemy who gets trapped—it’s ourselves.

The late Qing Dynasty offers a stark warning. Once a self-proclaimed "Celestial Empire" with cultural and military dominance, Qing rulers resisted foreign influence, insisting on isolation under their own imperial system. The cost was dire: technological stagnation, intellectual rigidity, diplomatic isolation, and the eventual loss of agency in a world led by modern powers. Policies meant to “protect the nation” became invisible walls that ushered in decline.

Today, are we repeating this tragic paradox? Stringent vetting, blanket bans, and severing ties with "outsiders" may appear to build fortresses, but they risk burning the bridges of global dialogue. Young generations may lose cultural literacy and global competitiveness. Innovation could dry up in closed systems. Societies may drift into intellectual isolation.

National security is undeniably important. But real security is not born from fear and exclusion—it emerges from resilience, confidence, and inclusiveness. Only by staying alert while remaining open, by building defenses through connection rather than separation, can we preserve our borders and our future.

In short, when “security” stops protecting the diversity and openness of a democratic society, and instead becomes a tool for exclusion, control, and censorship—it ceases to be a shield and becomes a shackle.

SDGs and the Shrinking Space for Academic and Cultural Exchange

According to the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), education is not just about information transmission. It is a bridge for mutual respect, peacebuilding, and global understanding. When national security overshadows academia and culture, we face an invisible battle: Are we protecting or imprisoning? Ensuring safety or breeding exclusion?

Harvard Under Fire: When Academic Freedom Clashes with State Power

In Spring 2025, Harvard University faced sweeping sanctions from the Trump-led U.S. administration following student protests over the Israel-Palestine conflict. These measures included freezing billions in research funds, threatening the school’s tax-exempt status, banning new international student admissions, and revoking immigration certifications.

While the government claimed it was “protecting students and guarding against foreign infiltration,” critics called it an abuse of power under the banner of national security. Harvard’s president and faculty spoke out, warning that such actions could rupture global academic collaboration and derail scientific progress—especially in fields like cancer research and public health that require international cooperation.

This wasn’t just Harvard’s crisis—it was a test of democratic endurance worldwide.

Taiwan’s Fog of War: Defensive Measures or Cultural Isolation?

Echoing the situation in the U.S., Taiwan has introduced a series of anti-infiltration policies amid rising cross-strait tensions. From technology screening to academic restrictions and the Anti-Infiltration Act, the government has invoked “sovereignty and democracy” as justification. But critics argue that such moves risk veering into xenophobia.

The Ministry of Education’s suspension of certain university partnerships with Chinese institutions triggered backlash from academics and opposition leaders, who accused the government of “political interference” and “hindering mutual understanding.” The securitization of Chinese spouses and their children has also stoked concerns over stereotyping and social division.

The key issue is not just risk assessment, but this: Are we sacrificing understanding in favor of fear?

When National Security, Exclusion, and Power Intertwine

Experts warn that since the Cold War, the concept of national security has expanded into the realms of technology, economy, and culture—giving states broad powers but also risking the suppression of civil liberties and diversity.

In the U.S., the targeting of specific student groups and national backgrounds has been criticized as systemic exclusion, leading to the stigmatization of Asian and international students. In Taiwan, excessive focus on the “China factor” can blur the lines between political regimes and individual people—eroding cross-strait empathy and collaboration.

The deeper question becomes: What kind of society are we building? One that fosters trust and inclusion—or one that builds walls out of fear?

Reframing Security and Freedom through the Lens of SDGs

The UN SDGs emphasize not just economic growth and environmental protection, but also educational freedom (Goal 4), reduced inequalities (Goal 10), peace and justice (Goal 16), and global partnerships (Goal 17). Academic and cultural exchanges are essential mechanisms to foster understanding and prevent conflict.

When educational institutions lose their freedom, when international students are denied opportunities or branded by nationality, the ideals of peace, equity, and educational justice ring hollow.

Conclusion: Do We Have the Courage to Choose Understanding?

Perhaps the question is not, “Are we safe enough?”

But rather, “How much freedom remains? How much space is left for dialogue?”

A truly strong society doesn’t rely on isolation and rejection to feel secure. It chooses openness in the face of fear, and clings to values in times of doubt. As the SDGs remind us, only through education, equity, and cooperation can we build real security—and lasting sustainability.

On this delicate balance between security and freedom, let us not choose fear and exclusion.

Let us choose trust, connection, and the courage to understand.

原文 (中文)：Nata Lin

翻譯 (英文)：Bruno Huang